JUDGMENT P.K. Samanta, J. One Niord Mohan Sur, since deceased owned and possessed certain lands which are situated in the District of Hooghly. The petitioners became the owners of the same after death of said Nirod Mohan Sur. After Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into operation the petitioners filed statement under section 6(1) of the said Act and on the basis of such statement Return Case No. 2108 was initiated by the competent authority. Upon due enquiry by the competent authority a draft statement was prepared under section 8(1) of the said Act. The petitioners filed objections thereto and upon consideration of the petitioners a final statement under section 9 was prepared and served upon the petitioners under Memo No. 205/ULC dated 9th April, 1991. That thereupon notification under section 10(1) of the said Act was published in the Official Gazette for taking possession of the vested lands by the authority concerned. That after conclusion of the proceeding as aforesaid the petitioners made an application under section 26 of the said for permission for sale of certain lands out of the lands allowed to be retained in the said proceedings. Since no objection was raised by the appropriate authority within the time prescribed against such application so the petitioners sold certain lands out of their retained lands. In such circumstances, the concerned competent authority by issuing notice under Memo No. 138/ULC dated 5th April, 1993 under section 8(3) of the said Act informed the petitioners that a fresh draft statement has been prepared under section 8(1) of the said Act on the basis of the statement which was filed by them under section 6(1) of the said Act as aforesaid and invited objections from the petitioners to the said draft statement and further informed that the previous draft statement under section 8(3) and the final statement under section 9 and notification under section 10(1) were treated as cancelled. The said memo dated 5th April, 1993 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Mr. The said memo dated 5th April, 1993 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Mr. Panda, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners challenged the same on the ground that the aforesaid notice is absolutely without any authority of law as because the proceeding under the provisions of the aforesaid Act having been concluded and the same having reached its finality the authority concerned had no power to reopen the same as the power to review is not an inherent power unless provided in the statute nor the same could be reopened for any reason whatsoever. In support of such contention Mr. Panda relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1970 SC 1273 (Patel Narshi & Ors. vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghi). 3. The State Government by filing an affidavit-in-opposition to this writ petition disclosed that pursuant to the Memo No. 1663(12)/UL.611-71/87 (Pt. II) dated 16/18th May, 1992 issued by Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Department, Urban Land Ceiling Branch a decision was taken to reopen all cases relating to the deceased person which were disposed of prior to 6.2.1992 and on the basis of such decision the aforesaid case has been reopened. 4. It is well settled law that power to review is a creature of statute and cannot be exercised in the absence of specific provision thereof in the statute. Such proposition finds its strength in the decision of the Supreme Court (supra) cited by Mr. Panda. The respondents also could not refer to any specific provision of the statute whereby the State Government could exercise its power to cancel by a general order all the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the statute and concluded by following the procedure laid down therein. There is also no provision in the statute whereby the competent authority either can reopen a case or review the orders made in a proceeding under the provisions of this Act. Accordingly, the impugned notice cannot be sustained and the same is therefore set aside. The writ petition is, thus allowed. Writ petition allowed.